STORY: "Mark Lundy's long battle to get out of prison continues," by reporter John Galuszka, published by Stuff on October 16, 2017. (Chronology provided);
GIST: "Mark Lundy, twice convicted of murdering his wife and daughter, maintains his innocence
Everyone who sat through Mark Lundy's retrial will have different
opinions on his guilt or innocence – if he killed his wife Christine and
7-year-old daughter Amber in their Palmerston North home on the night
of August 30, 2000. But it is safe to say they will agree on one thing – the scientific evidence was extremely complicated. Lundy
was found guilty of the murders in 2002, but the Privy Council quashed
the verdicts in 2013 and ordered a retrial, which took place in 2015. He
was again found guilty and sent back to prison to continue serving his
life sentence with a minimum term of 20 years. His case is once again
before the Court of Appeal this week, starting on Tuesday. Some parts of the case were presented differently between the first
and second trials, with the Crown's introduction of
messenger RNA evidence one of the most controversial differences. RNA
stands for ribonucleic acid and it is similar to DNA. Did it
indicate there was human brain or spinal-cord tissue on Lundy's shirt? Lundy's legal team failed in both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court
to have it thrown out before the retrial. That evidence will once again
be challenged, according to Lundy's notice of appeal. "It was
crucial and central to the Crown case, and remains in real scientific
dispute," the notice says. "It is inappropriate and unrealistic to
expect a jury to determine such complex issues of scientific dispute." There was never dispute that one of Lundy's shirts had stains
containing central nervous system tissue. The stains also contained DNA
from the victims. The DNA being there is not surprising, considering the trio lived together. The tissue was the issue. The
Crown said it was probably human tissue from Lundy's wife. Crown
prosecutor Philip Morgan, QC, in his closing address at the retrial, let
the jury know how bad that looked. "No man should have his wife's brain
on his shirt." The defence, however, said the tissue could have come from a piece of offal in a pie or a neck chop Lundy may have cooked. No-one at the trial gave evidence about Lundy eating neck chops.
There was a pie wrapper in his car door console, but no pie maker in the
witness stand saying exactly what goes into a pie. The Crown
called on Dutch scientist Dr Laetitia Sijen to conduct RNA testing on
the pieces of shirt that had been preserved, in an effort to strengthen
the case against Lundy. David Hislop, QC, who represented Mark Lundy at his 2015
retrial, proposed three "impossibilities" when saying Lundy did not
commit the murders.
While DNA can tell you who a piece of body tissue comes from, it
cannot say what it is. But RNA works the other way around, making it
possible to say if tissue came from a leg, an eye or a brain. Sijen did
not find any tissue on one shirt stain, but seven out of 12 tests on a
shirt sleeve stain came back positive for human central nervous system
tissue. That made it 58 per cent probable the tissue was from a human
brain or spinal cord, she said. But a different expert, Professor
Stephen Bustin, said Sijen's testing was flawed. Control samples did not
bring back the expected results, some processes were highly variable
and the RNA material was likely unstable, he said. However, he could not
say anything about Sijen's results with absolute certainty, only going
as far as being "very reluctant" to accept the results due to
"fundamental flaws" in the testing. That still left Lundy with the undisputed evidence – the shirt
stains contain central nervous system tissue and the victims' DNA. But none of that matters if it was impossible for Lundy to commit the murders because he wasn't there. He
was staying at a Petone motel the night of the murders. Cellphone
polling data had his phone being used in Petone at 5.30pm and 8.28pm. A
computer at home was turned off at 10.52pm. He saw a prostitute in his
motel room at midnight. The next confirmed sighting of him was by the
motel manager at 7am when he asked for batteries for his electric
shaver. At the first trial, the Crown claimed he left Petone at
5.30pm, committed the murders at 7pm, messed with the computer to show a
later shutdown time, staged a home invasion and got back to Petone by
8.28pm – all through rush-hour traffic. The Crown produced a more
plausible theory at the second trial – that Lundy committed the murders
between seeing the prostitute and motel manager. Lundy's retrial
lawyer David Hislop, QC, said in his closing address there were three
things showing it was impossible for Lundy to commit the murders: His
car could not hold enough petrol; the victims' stomachs were full when
killed, but should have been empty; and a neighbour said a sliding door
on Lundy's house was open at 11pm. Lundy's appeal notice states issues around the petrol will be challenged. The
petrol consumption evidence at the retrial was problematic. His car,
a 1998 Ford Fairmont EL, only held 68 litres, but police tests found he
needed 75.95 litres of fuel. But the testing was carried out on the
basis of the first-trial timing, which would have wasted much more
petrol through high-speed driving. Another issue was no-one tested
the exact model Lundy drove in time for the retrial. The next best on
offer was a Ford Fairmont Ghia EL, which had a weaker engine than the
straight Fairmont EL. The best figures any lawyer could offer were
mileage estimates taken from a website. The sliding-door
impossibility theorises the murderer was inside by 11pm, before Lundy
had seen the prostitute, while the final impossibility relates to
digestion. The first trial's version of events was largely based
on pathologist Dr James Pang's estimate the victims died an hour after
eating. A visit to McDonald's by Christine and Amber at 5.45pm would
result in a time of death about 7pm. But that was abandoned at
the retrial, after the Privy Council tore Pang's estimate to shreds. The
victims still had food in their stomachs, which Hislop said should not
have been there if they had eaten at 6pm and were killed between 1am and
5am."
The entire story can be found at the link below:
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/97739190/mark-lundys-long-battle-to-clear-his-name-continues
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the
Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my
previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put
considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith
and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic
pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses
on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please
send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest
to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy;
Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
